Weeds as Biofuel, Poor Journalism, and Re-useable Shopping Bags

Issue:
I was going to do my issue on the weed jatropha, that originated in Central America and has spread around the world, that companies like BP and British biofuel giants are dumping money into as a future biofuel. Unlike ethanol from corn and sugar cane, it does not require the use of pesticides, or large amounts of water and fertilizer to grow and it yields many times as much biofuel per acre as planted corn. Farmers can plant it along side their food crops and it can grow in marginal soil. Other countries like India, China, the Philippines, and Malaysia are starting huge jatropha plantations in attempts to become more energy independent. Although jatropha can grow in barren lands with little rainfall I’m concerned that in places such as Mali, if all the farmers’ decided to convert to jatropha production how will the countries food production be affected? In addition, even if the jatropha is a more profitable crop can farmers be assured they will receive the profits or will the owners of the biofuel companies be the profiteers?

NYTimes article: Mali’s Farmers Discover a Weed’s Potential Power by Lydia Polgreen, 9 Sept. 2007
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/world/africa/09biofuel.html?ref=environment>.

Issue part II:
I read this article and also wanted to address it and my reaction. This article is a blatant example of journalists’ decision to represent one side of a story and present the single sided issue as “findings” to suggest it contains only facts.
This type of reporting generally confuses the public. It is the opposite of environmentalist extremist but has the same result. It makes it more difficult to express and identify to the general public an important issue without them blocking it out as invalidated, exaggerated, unproductive concern. The reporter’s main source is Lomborg and his recently published book. In the NYT article, Lomborg address that the countries of Africa are battling malaria, AIDS, and hunger and that we should not ignore them by only concerning ourselves with climate change and I fully agree! However, I hope that when the author discusses what he calls bigger issues (than climate change), he is also explaining that a climate change will affect the continent of Africa the hardest.
I have not read his book, so I can only hope that Lomborg is a responsibly writer and has done some researcher. The IPCC has clearly expressed that Africa is the least prepared for the consequences of global warming. Parts of the continent will experience drought, lessening the already small amounts of available food, some regions will experience intense rainfall where erosion is prevalent also cutting into food availability. Most populations will need to move to the coastal areas to avoid the extreme weather factors. The coasts will become crowded and in areas of dense populations with low quality of sanitation or health disease can spread faster. Sadly, global warming is also expected to raise sea level, cause greater coastal erosion, flooding, and saltwater intrusion; therefore significantly impacting Africa’s large coastal communities (IPCC, 2001). Because of erosion also around the coast the waters salinity may increase. If so, fish populations will struggle to survive and fisheries may also suffer.
These are all projects, from models, but they have been tested and collaborated on by many in the IPCC. Although, the exact unfolding of the future conditions of any continent is unknown it is arrogant for one writer to suggest global warming is something to be skeptical of and should not be a concern. It would be more responsible to say it should not be the only concern.

"Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." Bjorn Lomborg. Knopf, 2007.

NYTimes article: ‘Feel Good’ vs. ‘Do Good’ on Climate by John Tierney, 11 September 2007
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/science/earth/11tiern.html?ref=environment>.

Deed:
A simple environmental good deed that I practice involves using reusable shopping bags. Eliminating my use of plastic shopping bags has been easy. I just have to remember to put the bags back in my car after every shopping trip so I always have them. If I forget my bags, I can’t stand getting one of the plastic ones, knowing that I have my cloth bag at home. So if you ever see me leaving a store juggling my groceries in my arms…it is safe to assume I forgot my bags.
Sadly, the plastic bags came out of the outcry for something other than the tree killing paper bags. But plastic didn’t put an end to the environmentalists shoppers’ concern it simply re-directed it. Even if you just purchased a pack of gum you are given a plastic bag, they are everywhere! Generally, the plastic bags aren’t recycled because they can’t be! The bags can’t go in your at home recycling bin. And the bags that are filling up landfills will not biodegrade in my great grandchildren’s lifetime. Although, there is equipment that can recycle the bags these sites are few in number and expensive to operate. For example, in Flagstaff I know of only one store that collects the bags for recycling, Walmart. Weird, isn’t? And only just recently, the first grocery store in town, Safeway, has begun to offer a re-useable bag for sale by the checkout line.
I don’t know about you but I’m sick of seeing those plastic grocery bags tumbling down the street or sidewalk, blowing in the wind along beaches, ending up in the oceans harassing the already struggling aquatic species, and filling up landfills. The use of re-usable shopping bags is an easy, quiet, but effective way to help soften our footprint.